Free association.

Freedom of the individual.

This subreddit is about the political philosophy. For discussion of the ongoing presidental campaign, consider using /r/garyjohnson. We are in no way affiliated with the Libertarian Party.

/r/Libertarian is a community to discuss free markets and free societies with free minds. As such, we truly believe in spontaneous order and don't formally regulate content (A practice encouraged by site reddiquette). A few general guidelines will help everyone:

Please don't downvote comments. Especially because you disagree with a comment. No one should be shut out of a conversation because you disagree with them. In this subreddit: One is zero, zero is negative. No one should be below zero unless it's pharma spam or something.

Participate and submit content Please take some time to submit things that foster discussion on libertarian topics. This is not meant to discourage image macros, which are nothing more than glorified self posts, and are allowed in /r/libertarian. Read through those links if you want, but don't message us about it.

Report off topic pharma/revenue spam only, not trolling, or content or comments you disagree with.

Don't like the content? DON'T REPORT IT OR MESSAGE US ABOUT IT ... since we aren't going to tag it, remove it or ban anyone. Go to the new queue and vote on the submissions there if the content bothers you.

I highly doubt /r/politics is being gamed by anyone that is paid. I would say a combination of ignorance in economic matters, confirmation bias, and a need to believe that a (non-supernatural) higher power is watching over them for their protection is the driving force behind what goes on there.

So why are important issues relating to NDAA and SOPA like executive orders being burried? Go back months ago and these issues were hot items. No they are virtually killed before anyone sees the stories. Anything that would shine any negative light on Obama (even if it shows Romney in a bad light as well) get's sunk.

Or you're outnumbered by people who disagree with you and know that the things on the right, however terrible, wouldn't be changed by Romney and can't be changed by any no-chance-in-hell third parties.

But that's crazy talk, right? Clearly, it must be some kind of conspiracy.

Not crazy talk. Go post something that is important such as executive orders that will mess with the internet, or perhaps the NDAA. These are important issues that the real users of /r/politics has traditionally supported and upvoted. Now these issues get buried before they get any traction. /r/poltics is gamed.

Both R and D are the same party leadership and I can prove it to you. Watch Fox News as long as you can stand it and see if they ever mention the NDAA or the provisions therein Obama has implemented (or better, find someone who watches it as their source of news and ask if they have ever even heard of the NDAA).

Both sides have the elections rigged through the media, Gary Johnson would win by a landslide if he were included in the debates alongside Romney and Obama because he is the only sane candidate - the mainstream news channels won't even mention his name, referring to supporters as being for Ron Paul instead because they don't want Gary Johnson's name to even be in people's minds well enough to have them do some research before they see it on the ballot and think he's nothing.

I deviate from my fellow libertarians on this one. Historically, immigrants vote heavily Democrat and for social programs (worked in California for 5 years). I'm not saying we should start deporting people, but until welfare and entitlement programs are totally reformed (or completely abolished), I don't see completely open borders as being a good idea.

I'm not trying to flame here, mind you. This might be my weakest point as a libertarian, so help me understand.

In a libertarian society, I would be in favor of open borders. Given that we have a system marred with social programs and public property, mass immigration seems like a bad idea. I worked in California and eventually left because of an economy that was depleted due in part to a lengthly history with an abundance of social welfare programs.

We can't afford to support those who are on foodstamps, WIC, etc. now. An influx of people wanting entitlements would just add to the amount we can't sustain.

I guess the price of being libertarian is allowing others the freedom to eventually remove you from the equation.

What you're saying is, I think, generally confirmed among libertarians. I believe the same thing. We can't open boarders until we have social welfare reform. It would literally bankrupt us. Actually the thing that had hurt illegal immigration the most is our economy. Illegals are going back to their country because of how shitty it is here. I find it pretty funny.

What you're saying makes sense. But it's the classic case of treating the symptom rather than the cause. Maybe it even makes sense to treat both sometimes. The reality of course is that symptoms most often get treated INSTEAD of causes when it comes to government.

Wrong. The 15th Amendment says you can't deny the right to vote based on race, color, or previous status as a slave, the 19th Amendment says you can't deny based on sex, the 24th Amendment says you can't deny based on non-payment of a poll tax, the 26th Amendment says you can't deny based on age (so long as over 18).

These are all very specific prohibitions on denying the right to vote, and ignorance or mental disability isn't on them. The only time a general right to vote is discussed is in the 14th Amendment, and all it says is that if you deny the right to vote for reasons other than a crime then you have to re-apportion representatives accordingly.

You realize that voting tests have been used to exclude people from voting since the abolition of slavery right?

You're talking about the ones that were used to discourage newly free blacks from voting soon after the end of abolition. The Supreme Court found those unconstitutional because they were violating the 15th Amendment as applied. I don't have any problem with them using an as applied test and I think it is a useful test for Constitutionality as it allows Judges to look beyond the black letter wording of a law and see what the actual intent and effect is; in that case, those laws were intended to discourage blacks from voting and did exactly that.

It would just be another mechanism to game the system.

Do you think the test immigrants have to take in order to gain their citizenship is a way to game the system? Because I think making citizens take just that exact same test before they can vote would be a good step, though I think maybe it should be a little harder for everyone.

Why should we let people vote if they don't even understand how the voting system works or what they are voting for?

I disagree. I think if the 15th amendment weren't passed, and the Voting Rights act weren't considered, then the courts would have found the tests to be illegitimate under the 14th amendments equal protection clause.

Anyways, I agree that I'm technically wrong as the law would be illegal following the Voting Rights act, rather than unconstitutional per se.

There's not really the incentive to game the system with citizenship tests that there is with voting tests. Imagine every couple years the voting test is modified based on study results from either party that indicate more of the other party's voters will fail. It's preposterous, and would be akin to gerrymandering once it was all said and done.

Why should we let people vote if they don't even understand how the voting system works or what they are voting for?

Why does it matter how much they understand the system? They are voting for a representative that understands the system, that's the idea. I mean, should the voting test include explicit questioning on point of process during Senate debates? Should we be expected to know proper procedure to invoke cloture?

A voting test is another way for government and the parties to game the vote. Unrestricted voting prevents that from happening.

I never understand why the fuck people care about what their people in office drink, how much, or if they do.

I also rage hardcore when I hear "I could see having a drink with that man" Great.. except he'd never have a drink with you unless he thought it could get him votes. They're both millionaires, you're not. Guess what? Unless you go to a expensive restaurant, you won't be in the same room as them.

People seem to think that we need a president we can have a drink with. That's the furthest from the truth. If you want a common man to govern us, we need a common man, not one of the uber rich that's necessary for getting into government.

What we really need is an intelligent man, not just a guy who can drink a beer near us.